Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quality of day care is an issue as well. The one form of day care that has been found to be consistently lacking is the one poor people are most likely to use. Kith and kin care. Employing friends and relatives with no training in child development to care for your children. Often these friends and relatives are simply baby sitters keeping the child safe, dry and fed but little more. Children need stimulation. They need to be talked to and read to and to participate in activities that help them learn. A friend or relative may view child care as a favor rather than a job to be done well.
What schools can do is bring back tracking. When you put a child who doesn't even know what a book is in the same class as a child who already reads, the education of both children will end up lacking. There will be a rush to push the lagging child ahead when they need time while the child who is ahead will languish while their less able peer tries to catch up. Children should be tested for entry into school and every year thereafter for placement on the correct track. A track that will best suit them and their learning. We're so afraid to say that one child knows more than another that we cheat them all. Sorry people but children are born with different capabilities and some are limited or pushed forward by their parents. This is reality and we'd do well to just accept that different kids have different educational needs and create tracks where each child can get an education that best suits them.
That's all well and good, but now a days you need some sort of "certification" from a place of "higher learning" to scrub a toilet.
Yes, we'd be told we're taking away someone's RIGHT to procreate. It should be children who have the right to parents who are grown ups who can care for them. With a pregnant 19 year old in the house right now I often think how much better off this child's life could have been if she'd at least waited until she was out of college. Unfortunately, he starts out life with the odds stacked against him. Neither parent has completed their education and have jobs that pay little better than minimum wage. How many more of our kids would finish school and develop careers if they didn't have the option of having kids before 25?
Who determines who should breed and who shouldn't????
Look at The Kennedy family, they had/have the problems "bad people" have,but can afford a good lawyer. Big difference between "lower class" people and "upper class" people.
I never thought about it, until a few years ago. My hard working educated father had a drinking problem, alcoholism to be specific. He was an engineer and when he had a crisis, his place of employment allowed him the time off to get treatment at a facility. A facility one of Bill Cosby's children attended.
IF my dad was a blue collar worker and had alcoholism his "treatment" would have been jail.
It's all about the money. It's always about the money.
Inner cities have more working poor and a higher percentage of non-native English speaking people. So much money is spent trying to help these kids catch up that there is little left over for the English speaking child who enters school ready to learn. Children of the working poor usually usually have only custodial child care. They are at a huge disadvantage when compared to children who have attended something similar to Montessori for a couple years before Kindergarten.
School is geared down to accommodate those who are not ready to be there. Some catch up but many never do. And the child who is prepared and ready to be there is not challenged. The child who goes to school and does not learn is probably headed for trouble and will have problems.
#1. Schools are funded by property taxes. How much home ownership or business ownership exists in the inner cities?
#2. Society is still wired towards the nuclear family, however the nuclear family is shrinking. That places single parent households at a disadvantage socially and economically.
#3. It's easier to blame those living in the inner cities on the problems they face than come up with a viable solution.
#1. In general, city schools have higher per-pupil funding than suburban schools. (Take note of italics.) This is because cities have bigger tax bases, again, in general. All housing except government-owned public housing is subject to property tax. In the case of rentals, the landlord pays it, and passes it on to the renter in the form of higher rent. In addition, cities usually have large businesses to tax. Many burbs have little business other than grocery stores and other retail. I have posted links to these issues in the past. You are welcome to search my posts.
#2. Agree in part, but I don't know what you do about that. Socially, there is very little stigma any more in being a single parent. IMO, schools could be more family-friendly, period. Back when my kids were young (20+ years ago), my district had different professional development days off for different levels, so your middle schooler couldn't babysit your elementary kid on such a day. Finally, the parents pressured the schools to unify the calendar. Lots of other examples.
#3. If you have the solution, I'm sure every big-city superintendent of schools would love to hear it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Lots of reasons. Inner city schools get less funding. More single parent families in inner city neighborhoods, with the single parent stretched too thin. More negative influences in the environment, making it hard for good kids to stay on track. High teacher turnover in some schools.
However, the inner city highschool in Seattle has a very impressive variety of high-level courses. They had an introduction to law course when I lived there. The best public highschools in the city didn't have anything like that. So you never know. There can be pleasant surprises.
#1. In general, city schools have higher per-pupil funding than suburban schools. (Take note of italics.) This is because cities have bigger tax bases, again, in general. All housing except government-owned public housing is subject to property tax. In the case of rentals, the landlord pays it, and passes it on to the renter in the form of higher rent. In addition, cities usually have large businesses to tax. Many burbs have little business other than grocery stores and other retail. I have posted links to these issues in the past. You are welcome to search my posts.
#2. Agree in part, but I don't know what you do about that. Socially, there is very little stigma any more in being a single parent. IMO, schools could be more family-friendly, period. Back when my kids were young (20+ years ago), my district had different professional development days off for different levels, so your middle schooler couldn't babysit your elementary kid on such a day. Finally, the parents pressured the schools to unify the calendar. Lots of other examples.
#3. If you have the solution, I'm sure every big-city superintendent of schools would love to hear it.
See above.
I am sure there are ways to brainstorm and come up with solutions. Sometimes, the "experts" often make things more complicated than they need to be. Are there community based programs? What programs are effective? Which ones are not?---it's more productive than scapegoating poor working class people.
Who determines who should breed and who shouldn't????
Look at The Kennedy family, they had/have the problems "bad people" have,but can afford a good lawyer. Big difference between "lower class" people and "upper class" people.
I never thought about it, until a few years ago. My hard working educated father had a drinking problem, alcoholism to be specific. He was an engineer and when he had a crisis, his place of employment allowed him the time off to get treatment at a facility. A facility one of Bill Cosby's children attended.
IF my dad was a blue collar worker and had alcoholism his "treatment" would have been jail.
No system would ever be perfect but I stand by what I posted. If we set a minimum age for parenting like we have driving and voting and drinking I think we'd improve the lives of children (statistically speaking) AND improve our education system. As far as who should be allowed to get the reversal procedure...anyone who attains the legal age who can show they can support themselves and their children. You have no business having them if you can't afford them. Does this mean all children will be raised well? No. But it sure would improve their chances.
Yes there are wealthy families who turn out jerks who are drains on society but by far this more true of the poor. SES is the second best indicator of outcomes for children. Considering what is first it should be first. First is maternal education but that tends to track with SES. If you really want to stack the odds against a child have them be born to a poor family in an impoverished area with an uneducated mother. Sadly, this describes my newest grand son. If this were my choice that baby would be put up for adoption to give him a chance.
I am sure there are ways to brainstorm and come up with solutions. Sometimes, the "experts" often make things more complicated than they need to be. Are there community based programs? What programs are effective? Which ones are not?---it's more productive than scapegoating poor working class people.
I have been involved with schools for 25 years now. For longer than that, people have been trying to come up with solutions. You can't just brainstorm, either. Programs have to be proven effective. Just because something sounds good, that doesn't mean it works. They have to be paid for. Accusing others of "scapegoating" is not helpful.
I have been involved with schools for 25 years now. For longer than that, people have been trying to come up with solutions. You can't just brainstorm, either. Programs have to be proven effective. Just because something sounds good, that doesn't mean it works. They have to be paid for. Accusing others of "scapegoating" is not helpful.
I will use a different tone, but I do feel the attitude on this thread is to blame poor people for their plight. Yeah, there are "icky" people living in inner cities, but there are icky people in white collar circles Michael Milken and Madoff. Who has done MORE harm to society? Inner city kids who grow up in gun fire or people who cause corruption and economic chaos?
I will use a different tone, but I do feel the attitude on this thread is to blame poor people for their plight. Yeah, there are "icky" people living in inner cities, but there are icky people in white collar circles Michael Milken and Madoff. Who has done MORE harm to society? Inner city kids who grow up in gun fire or people who cause corruption and economic chaos?
You can rant all you want, but I haven't said a word about "icky" people, so leave me out of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone can do that. Ironic isn't it?